“Do chimpanzees in the wild want to kill others? Is murder common among wild chimpanzees? Do male chimps (and their cousin male humans) have “killer” “demonic” instincts towards their fellows? If you look at the data, the answer to these questions is a resounding NO! But these beliefs are “gospel” in much of popular science. This misinformation colors our view of humans and human nature. What are the ramifications?”
This was the opening paragraph of a recent blog by Dr. Darcia Narvaez on the Psychology Today website. Dr. Narvaez, an Associate Professor of Psychology at Notre Dame University, decided to tackle the question of whether or not male humans and chimpanzees are “genetically violent” – a poor choice of terminology, but I know what she’s driving at, and I’ve got a fair amount of experience in this area. So, I decided that I would take a few minutes and write up a response to Dr. Narvaez’s assertions to see if we can’t set the record straight in this regard.
The best place to start is with her opening paragraph, and we’ll look at each question and the wording she uses to see if her conclusions hold up:
“Do chimpanzees in the wild want to kill others?” I call this the Dr. Doolittle question. This question is asking what the desires and intentions are of an animal that doesn’t possess the power to communicate in a spoken language [at least not one humans understand at this point]. Therefore, the question, at its essence cannot be answered. However a few clearer, related questions can be answered:
1) Do chimpanzees in the wild avoid attacking others?
2) When chimpanzees in the wild attack others do they exhibit behaviors associated with excitement?
3) When chimpanzees in the wild attack others do they kill them when possible, or attempt to do so?
No matter how you analyze the data from field notes, to video to personal observation (been there, seen that) the answer to the three questions listed above are:
1) No, chimpanzees in the wild do not avoid attacking others if they appear to have a numerical advantage over their rivals. Goodall suggested this in her classic volume on the Gombe chimpanzees and it has since been supported through observational (Sherrow & Amsler, 2007) and experimental (Wilson et al, 2001) work.
2) Yes, chimpanzees in the wild exhibit behaviors (and physiology) associated with excitement when they attack others. Their hair stands on end in what ethologists call pyloerection and they run around screaming and shouting, often displaying and seeking each other out for reassurance (personal observation).
3) Yes, when chimpanzees in the wild attack others they kill them when possible, or they attempt to do so. There have now been reports from every major chimpanzee research site, with long-term habituation of either lethal aggression or attempts to commit acts of lethal aggression (Boesch et al, 2007; Sherrow, in preparation; Wilson & Wrangham, 2003).
“Is murder common among wild chimpanzees?” I call this the anthropogenic question. Chimpanzees may kill each other, but murder is a wholly human act, it implies intentions, motivations and emotions that we cannot attribute to even our closest living relatives. As for the question of whether or not they kill each other, see #3 above.
“Do male chimps (and their cousin male humans) have “killer” “demonic” instincts towards their fellows?” I call this the disassociated question. “Killer” and “demonic” need not be inseparable in our understanding of the two words. A soldier who kills in defense of her/his country, or a police officer who kills in defense of victims of a violent crime are not considered “demonic”, yet they are killers by the strictest definition of the word. They are also something else – heroes. Killing, in most human societies, is not always bad, but depends on the context of the killing (Livingstone Smith, 2009).
Dr. Narvaez chose to use the term “demonic” because of a very influential and popular book that was published in 1996, Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence by Wrangham & Peterson. In that book the authors used solid data (science lingo for information) on the living apes to show that when violence and aggression occur in our non-human cousins, males are the primary actors. In other words, males in our closest non-human ape relatives; bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans are more violent than their female counterparts. To those of us who study apes, this book was not as surprising as it was a great job of compiling and synthesizing much of the known information about apes at the time.
One of the most controversial claims made by Wrangham & Peterson in Demonic Males, is one that has been made by Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE herself and has been supported with overwhelming evidence from across Africa (e.g. Arcadi & Wrangham, 1999; Boesch et al, 2007; Goodall, 1986; Mitani et al, 2010; Muller, 2002; Nishida, 1979; Sherrow & Amsler, 2007; Watts et al, 2006; Williams et al, 2008; Wrangham, 1999), chimpanzee males regularly patrol territorial boundaries and when possible attack and kill males and infants from other communities.
Dr. Narvaez, uses information from two books by Hart and Sussman (2009) and Power (1991), which she claims to show how the evidence for lethal xenophobia in chimpanzees, presented in Demonic Males is “paltry”. She even uses the arguments laid out by Hart and Sussman to establish her position:
“(1) Goodall reports a so-called raiding party in 1982 in which a female was chased and mildly attacked and her 4-year-old son was sniffed.”
– Dr. Narvaez does herself a disservice by using the term “so-called” in describing the report by Goodall from 1982. Dr. Goodall literally wrote the book on chimpanzee behavior.
“(2) A 35 year old male’s body was found in 1981. With no evidence, murder was inferred. Males rarely live past 33.”
– The body had been trampled with injuries that appeared to be from other chimpanzees. Beyond that, again, chimpanzees do not “murder”. While the average age for male chimpanzees at death is around 33 that includes males who die before age 15. Once males reach maturity, they can live into their late 30’s and 40’s in the wild.
“(3) “From 1970 to 1982 six adult males from one community disappeared at a Japanese study site in the Mahale Mountains of Tanzania, west of Gombe,” one by one over a 12 year period. With no evidence, murder was inferred. But lions are common predators of chimpanzees in that region.”
– While the attacks weren’t observed in those cases at Mahale, the males in question disappeared after intense territorial disputes between two communities and extremely loud and violent fighting sounds were heard before those males disappeared (Nishida et al, 1990). Again, “murder” was never inferred. As for lions being “common” predators of chimpanzees in that region, that statement is misleading. Lions regularly pass through the Mahale study area in western Tanzania and do prey on chimpanzees, however they are not common predators. Further, if lions were regularly eating chimpanzees in the region, we would expect to see a consistent rate of predation and it should be fairly evenly distributed between males and females (in fact, given that females are often alone, it should skew toward more females being preyed upon). Instead, the disappearance was of adult males, after intense territorial interactions.
“(4) Wrangham and Peterson misreport statements by Christopher and Hedwige Boesch, saying that they said “violent aggression among the chimpanzees is as important as it is in Gombe” whereas they really said, according to Hart and Sussman is that “encounters by neighboring chimpanzee communities are more common in their site than in Gombe and that this may lead to larger, more cohesive, group structure and a ‘higher involvement of the males in social life’-there is no mention of any violence or killing during these encounters” (p. 210).”
– This is just plain wrong. What Boesch and Boesch (1989) really said was, “The pressure of territorial fights could be another major factor. Encounters with neighboring communities are fairly common (29 encounters in 29 months in Tai’). It might well be that the larger a male group is, the higher is its chance to win such territorial fights and the higher is its chance of enlarging its territory and its access to females (see descriptions of intercommunity encounters in Gombe;Goodall,1986;Wrangham, 1975)…This increase in group cohesion may be related to an increase in territorial pressure from neighboring communities. Thus the probably higher rate at which strangers are encountered in Tai’ may have forced them to adopt a more cohesive group structure, which may subsequently lead to a higher involvement of the males in social life at the cost of tool manipulation (Boesch and Boesch, 1984b).” Territorial fighting, by definition, is violent.
(5) At the site Wrangham had studied since 1984, a male’s body was found in 1991 a few days after the troop’s males had been exchanging calls with another community. The researchers had not seen any violence, nor was there any in the 7 years prior or 6 years after the incident. With no evidence, murder was inferred.
– Again, this statement, like the last is wrong. First, the chimps name was Ruwenzori, not Ruizoni as Hart & Sussman claim (p. 210). He was named for the mountain range to the west of Kibale National Park, where he lived and his body was found four days after he went missing, after an intercommunity encounter (a shouting match) between his community and their neighbors to the south. The research team “…found his disintegrating body hunched at the bottom of a little slope. The trampled vegetation bore witness to a struggle that started upslope and careened downward, sometimes sideways, for fifteen meters or more. Ruwenzori’s body was bitten and bruised and torn. He died healthy, with a full stomach, on the edge of adulthood, on the edge of his range.” (Wrangham & Peterson, 1996. p20). This is substantial evidence that Ruwenzori was killed by other chimpanzees, not “no evidence” as Dr. Narvaez would have her readers believe.
It’s unfortunate that Dr. Narvaez didn’t take the time to dig a little deeper into this subject, or to use information from researchers who study chimpanzees. While I don’t think you have to study chimpanzees to understand their behavior, and that you can get a lot from the literature, I think that something can be said for first-hand experience. Once you witness lethal violence in chimpanzees, you are not likely to forget it. For those with strong stomachs I have attached a short video to this blog that will hopefully provide some understanding to the excitement and brutality involved when male chimpanzees stalk other chimpanzees and engage in lethal violence towards them.
By not going deeper into the argument, but instead using some of the data to support a position she already holds, Dr. Narvaez is being ignorant at best, and more likely irresponsible in her blog. When Dr. Narvaez claims, “…that our current cultures, societal practices and beliefs have created the violent humans we see around us. They are an aberration from our evolutionary heritage…That means we have ourselves to blame, not selfish genes, not evolution. And it means we can change the practices and beliefs that create our violent cultures.” She is stating a philosophical position that is admirable in some regard, but not defensible given the information out there on chimpanzees and humans.
The other day in my Human Evolution course I had my students go through an exercise of identifying and labeling the traits that make us human. We listed everything we could think of and then went through them all, crossing them off to get at the traits that were unique to humans. One of the traits the students came up with was “lethally xenophobic”, referring to the propensity of humans to attack and kill members of other communities, nation states, ethnic and religious groups. The students were quick to point out that that trait was not unique to humans, but like our chimpanzee cousins we form in-groups and out-groups, and like our chimpanzee cousins we are not kindly disposed to members of out-groups, or outsiders.
By ignoring what the scientific data tells us about ourselves and our closest living relatives, we are committing ourselves to an inquiry of ignorance that is doomed to failure. If we want to succeed in understanding violence and warfare, we must understand its evolution.
REFERENCES
Arcadi, A. C. & Wrangham, R. W. 1999. Infanticide in chimpanzees: Review of cases and a new within-group observation from the Kanyawara study group in Kibale National Park. Primates. v40 (2). p337-351.
Boesch, C. & Boesch, H. 1989. Hunting behavior of wild chimpanzees in the Tai National Park. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. v78. p547-573.
Boesch, C., Head, J., Tagg, N., Arandjelovic, M., Vigilant, L., & Robbins, M. M. (2007). Fatal chimpanzee attack in loango national park, gabon. International Journal of Primatology, 28(5), 1025-1034.
Goodall, J. 1986. The chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of behavior. Harvard University Press.
Livingstone Smith, D. 2007. The most dangerous animal:Human nature and the origins of war. St. Martin’s Press.
Muller, M. N. 2002. Agonistic relations among Kanyawara chimpanzees. In: Behavioural diversity in chimpanzees and bonobos. Cambridge University Press.
Nishida, T. 1979. The Social Structure of Chimpanzees of the Mahale Mountains. In: The Great Apes. Ed Hamburg, D. A. & McCown, E. The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Company.
Nishida, T. 1990. The Chimpanzees of the Mahale Mountains: Sexual and Life History Strategies. The University of Tokyo Press.
Sherrow, H. M. & Amsler, S. J. 2007. New cases of inter-community infanticides by the chimpanzees of Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda. International Journal of Primatology. v28 (1):9 – 22.
Sherrow, H. M. In Preparation. The Testicle Targeting Hypothesis and Intrasexual Competition Among Male Chimpanzees. To be submitted to Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology.
Watts, D. P., Muller, M., Amsler, S. J., Mbabazi, G., & Mitani, J. C. (2006). Lethal intergroup aggression by chimpanzees in kibale national park, uganda. American Journal of Primatology, 68(2), 161-180.
Williams, J. M., Lonsdorf, E. V., Wilson, M. L., Schumacher-Stankey, J., Goodall, J., & Pusey, A. E. (2008). Causes of death in the kasekela chimpanzees of gombe national park, tanzania. American Journal of Primatology, 70(8), 766-777.
Wilson, M. L., Hauser, M. D., & Wrangham, R. W. (2001). Does participation in intergroup conflict depend on numerical assessment, range location, or rank for wild chimpanzees? Animal Behaviour, 61, 1203-1216.
Wilson, M. L. & Wrangham, R. W. 2003. Intergroup relations in chimpanzees. Annual Review of Anthropology. v32. p363-392.
Wrangham, R. W. 1999. Evolution of coalitionary killing. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. v42. p1-30.
Wrangham, R. W. & Peterson, D. 1996. Demonic Males: Apes and the origins of human violence. Houghton Mifflin.
You Evolving 
28 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 11, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Camille Kronk
Xenophobia is inherent in humans and chimps, but this doesn’t mean its a “demonic gene”. Rather, this comes naturally from instincts to protect our lives and the lives of our offspring to ensure our genes be passed on. Natural selection acts in favor of those with the strongest capabilities for survival (and this has always been the case throughout millions of years of evolution), so if that means killing “others”-as the term xenophobia suggests-then we will.
From the video clip i noticed strong cooperation and team-like rallying, getting each other “pumped” up, so to speak. These actions are comparable to sports teams or even gang violence; each stems from the idea of “us” v. “them”- a trait embedded in chimps and even possibly more so humans. We have the capability to reinforce this concept with culture, ideology, and cognitive actions, ie: the Crusades. However, even though we have cognitive thought as an advantage, we aren’t always aware of those subconscious instincts so deeply rooted in ourselves. So, to suggest that humans and chimps alike are naturally evil or demonic is quite ignorant, especially when evolution is not considered. Our species and our closest living relatives have adapted to do anything, even kill, to survive.
April 12, 2011 at 3:48 am
Katie Denning
Within this context, I think it is important to stress the difference between “murder” and killing. As Dr. Sherrow stated, “murder” brings along with it the connotation of emotions and feelings that chimpanzees are not able to express without language as we know it. The killing that occurs in chimp groups during boundary patrols, as seen in the video, and other territorial battles are strictly instinctual. Although chimps have been seen to exhibit signs of so called excitement during an attack, the patrols are in place to form alliances within the group, and essentially protect what is theirs.
The same can be seen in humans; this need to protect what is ours. While we may not exhibit the same boundary patrols and aggressive group attacks, humans have established other ways of making our positions known. The fear that is xenophobia is the motive for both chimp and human action, not some demonic gene compelling violence. Chimps must protect the resources available to them, as well as their offspring to ensure the continuation of their genes; to do this, they patrol to make sure others know what is theirs. Humans also have to protect resources available to them, protect offspring, and the necessities of life. To do this, we have evolved permanent shelters as we talked about in class. This one example of protective strategy creates a definite boundary between what is ours and needs to be protected, and what is outside and is the “enemy”. Evolution has created different strategies, but the motive remains constant.
April 13, 2011 at 2:43 am
Sean Potts
So many problems occur when psychology attempts to link together the behavior of two completely separate species. Although chimpanzees are our closest living ancestors, our behaviors have completely different lineages and reasons for existing. As Dr. Sherrow pointed out, chimps certainly form coalitions for the purpose of physical violence – just as we do – but for different reasons. Like Camille said, xenophobia is a trait that developed in both humans and primates as an evolutionary strategy to cope with threats. Even though we share a common ancestor, humans and chimpanzees have been evolving separately millions of years: dealing with separate threats to individuals and vastly different social problems. To say that chimps “murder” is laughably anthropomorphic, almost as much as saying chimps “don’t murder”. It is better to say that both humans and chimps utilize strategies of violence and domination which they have developed over their separate evolutionary histories.
The fact that Dr. Narvaez omitted vast amounts of data supporting physical violence among chimps and cited data with inconclusive evidence is bullshit too. So is her language; using the word murder and adding the incriminating phrase “so-called” in front of raiding parties. Science shouldn’t be subjective and it seems like she has an agenda here.
You’re right, observations on primate behavior should be left to the people that study primates. Psychologists should stick to the human mind and let anthropologists determine the behavioral link between humans and the other hominidae , otherwise so much gets lost in translation.
April 13, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Shannon Vance
One thing that’s interesting (read: amusing) about Dr. Narvaez’s arguments is that in each point she makes she repeatedly uses the phrase “with no evidence” in referring to reports made by well-known and respected primatologists such as Jane Goodall and Richard Wrangham. Yet, she does not seem to use any real evidence herself to make her claims – she doesn’t cite any data or original research, nor does she have any personal experience in primatology. Mostly, she backs up her arguments with just a few examples, which she misinterprets anyway, so that hardly counts. To use her own words against her: With no evidence, a lack of lethal xenophobia in chimps was inferred.
Based on the several sources Dr. Sherrow cites in this post, it is clear that chimpanzees do in fact show behaviors that could be termed lethal xenophobia – a fear of others that leads toward violence and an attempt to eliminate (i.e., kill) these others because they are perceived as threatening – and they have specific, definable reasons for doing so. Chimpanzees are known to be very territorial in order to protect their food, females, and other resources. Similarly, this concept is seen in humans, as well, in the form of warfare. Similar to chimps, humans use warfare to protect or gain resources. Long story short: both humans and our closest relatives are lethally xenophobic, for natural reasons.
April 13, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Sydney Capito
Although I do not remember a lot from the last upper division biological anthropology course I took with Dr. Sherrow (it was over two years ago), I do recall him adamantly stressing the importance of differentiating strictly “human terms” from those we associate with non-human primates. Dr. Navarez repeatedly inferred that chimpanzees have the capability to murder; a term that applies strictly to humans. Chimpanzees exhibit violent behavior as means of survival; whether that be protection of limited resources, to ensure access to reproduction, or to protect their offspring. As Camille stated, humans also have similar tendencies however our actions are much more complicated in that they involve complex cognitive thought such as emotion, intention, and motivation. This goes for Dr. Navarez’s initial question: Do chimpanzees “want” to kill others? Applying emotions to the actions of chimpanzees clouds the cognitive and psychological characteristics that differentiate humans from NHP, and therefore, undermines the work of Dr. Navarez in this article.
April 13, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Jonathan Frisbee
I find this blog to be very entertaining. The section where Dr. Sherrow cited parts of Dr. Narvaez’s work was interesting to read. Sherrow completely rips Narvaez apart because she is did not really do any fieldwork or observation of chimpanzees and is not specialized in the area. Sherrow’s response to the second citation that is about the 35 year old male’s body shows that he is much greater specialized in the area of work than Narvaez by stating facts about a chimp’s average life span. I think that psychologists should let anthropologists deal with matters like while they stick to understanding the human mind.
As for the main topic, I believe that murder is solely a behavior amongst humans because of our complex theory of mind. Although chimps display violent behaviors against other chimps, it does not even come close to the potential violent actions of humans. Both species commit violent acts but to try to link them together with an evolutionary history is foolish.
April 13, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Jessica Munday
One of the main disqualifying factors in Dr. Narvaez’s research is that she did not back up any claims made by any real scientific evidence and the sources she did use to attempt to back up her claims seemed less than par. This is a classic example of a researcher who “counted the hits and ignored the misses”, in order to come to a preconceived conclusion.
Dr. Sherrow’s new “clearer” questions, definately worked far better in the sense that the answers to them did not lead to a biased psychological opinion, but rather the facts for what they are.
I agree that it is misleading to attach “desires and intentions” to chimpanzees, so answering Dr. Narvaez’s first question would have been impossible. However, if we were to replace the word “want” with “need” and ask, “Do chimpanzees in the wild need to kill others?”, then we may be able to apply territorial and/or resource models to make an attempt at a knowledge claim.
The only real question I did not feel was addressed well was, “is murder common among wild chimpanzees? Dr. Sherrow corrects the use of the word murder -to kill, and rightly so, but neglects to address whether or not it is a common occurance. If so, how are these common accurances measured? I know it is not immediately relevant to his point, which was to argue for the importance of scientific data and being able to back up one’s claims, but I would still like to know.
April 13, 2011 at 11:15 pm
Catelynn Moses
Dr. Narvaez made a mistake in trying to prove the linkage or lack there of between humans and chimps and their tendencies for killing. As a psychologist, Dr. Narvaez should understand the theory of mind concept that separates humans from apes and other animals. As Dr. Sherrow stated, murder infers the presence of motive, emotion as well as intentions. Humans can murder in a demonic way, however, they can also kill fighting for their country and defending their homes. Chimps have this same instinct to compete for resources and be the most fit in their species.
Dr. Sherrow clearly has more experience in the observation of chimpanzees and Dr. Narvaez is just basing her arguments off of readings done by other researchers. If she were out in the field she would be able to understand that the violence happens and that one must understand it in order to understand how warfare has evolved and what human theory of mind has done to change it. As I stated above, Dr. Narvaez ruined her argument the moment she tried to use the idea of murder and demonic choices with an animal that cannot express these things. Dr. Sherrow also states this in this blog.
April 14, 2011 at 1:23 am
Joanna
Both humans and chimpanzees have the needs and motives to protect themselves, their offspring’s, and their resources. It is natural for both species and in some situations, killing the one who invades their territory is a necessity. How can we assume that either human males or chimpanzee males have demonic genes as Dr.Narvaez states? This has nothing to do with genes, it is a simple attempt to survive, assurance of their genes to pass on to the future generations. I agree with Camille, that xenophobia is inherent in humans and chimps, but again, that doesn’t mean that the demonic or evil gene is the reason for it. Quite frankly, the strongest species will survive; this is the principal of natural selection that we all should be aware of, even the psychologists. Humans have their ways of assuring their survival; we have the technology and knowledge to build shelters, weapons, etc. Chimps patrol their territory and when they spot danger, in order to protect themselves and their group, they need to kill the ones who represent danger to their own existence, simple as that.
I like Sean’s comment that psychologists should stick to humans and let the anthropologists study and find ways to understand primate’s behaviors. As we saw in the article, wrong conclusions can be made when a person is lacking the knowledge on the object of study.
April 14, 2011 at 1:41 am
Seth
I find it extremely interesting that Dr. Narvaez personifies chimp behavior by using the terms “demonic” and “murder”. I did a little research on Dr. Narvaez and found that she is a moral psychologist who focuses on moral development in humans. Moral psychology attempts to study ethics and psychology and how they develop an individual’s philosophy of mind….so why was she attempting to look at chimps? Chimps don’t have culture, so why would she apply ethical and moral approaches to chimps? She was right to look at chimps for a possible evolutionary explanation for lethal xenophobia, but she should have relied on someone who studies primate behavior. I agree with Narveaz statement that chimps don’t commit murder against other “fellows”; simply because it’s not murder, its nature. Infanticide and border patrols are several examples of violence among chimp populations where chimps seek out and kill other chimps. It’s not random; instead they eliminate possible threats and breading competition. Perhaps Narvaez would have had better luck finding the correct answer if she had relied on her “fellow” primate behavioral ecologists.
April 14, 2011 at 1:46 am
Alex Maza
I find issues with Dr. Narvaez’s blog post for multiple reasons. The first is that her argument is essentially as follows: humans ought to be peaceful because we have evolved from peaceful primates. Problematic with this argument is that it posits that our behavior simply ought to rest on the shoulders of evolutionary history. Instead, if she wished to argue against human violence she should be doing it from the position that we have much less need to be violent than our evolutionary ancestors. Our societies have a much greater capability to produce resources, thus we ought to be more inclusive with those resources. Thus, humans are not bound to the behaviors of their ancestors. Although, I will admit it is difficult to break patterns and customs. To further make my point, Dr. Navaez says the following in her blog “If you believe that chimpanzees are naturally violent and murder their fellow chimps, then you can easily extrapolate to humans.” The point is that we should NOT extrapolate or excuse our behavior based on the behavior of chimpanzees. Mostly because we have a more capable of thinking through situations.
My second issue is similar to the position Dr. Sherrow has taken, I find Dr. Narvaez’s argument filled with personal philosophical opinions and beliefs. Her point that “They [humans] are an aberration from our evolutionary heritage…” is an example of such bias. With the preponderance of evidence indicating otherwise, Dr. Navaraez still decides to make the argument that we are inherently non-lethal beings.
The last problem I see with her argument is simply that we should not be applying human terms, such as “murder,” to the behavior of animals in the wild. As Dr. Sherrow pointed out, humans “murder” because there are moral implications. Animals merely kill out of instinct. The cognitive abilities between Humans and other animals is too great for us to apply morality to creatures that are non-Human.
April 14, 2011 at 1:52 am
Anya Cosse
I think this post is a perfect example of the importance of being critical reader. Dr. Narvaez has engaged in a sort of arm chair anthropology, using the knowledge of field notes and studies of other to draw her conclusions. Her lack of field experience should behoove the reader to question the validity of her argument. What are the repercussions of basing an argument on the work of others?
One can draw parallels to this article, and the one we discussed in class. The article that (I believe, and am probably mixing up details) said orangutans are our closes living relatives because of (i think) a similarity based in the ear. If the reader didn’t know the importance of looking at conservative traits, they may not realize the faults of the study.
Which brings us back to this article. Being a critical reader can help us realize all the faults in Dr. Narvaez’s article. Like anthropomorphizing chimpanzees by applying human actions. (Like murder). And the fact she has no field experience, and her work is based off the work of others.
This idea of being a critical reader is increasingly relevant with the wealth of information available through technology. Another example of this is the news story that recently errupted that claimed paleoanthropologists had found a “gay caveman”.
The fact that information found on the internet and in anthropological studies won’t always be “true” is also important when we read Dr. Narvaez’s article. Where is she getting her information? How creditable are these studies? How would she even know for herself without proper field experience?
April 14, 2011 at 2:09 am
gwennanrichmond
Fear of ‘the other’, which can lead to violence in both chimp and human populations is not unreasonable especially if that ‘other’ poses a threat to the group an individual identifies with. From an evolutionary standpoint, protecting resources is critical aspect of insuring reproductive success and therefore can be justified in a number of ways, as Dr. Sherrow pointed out. Yet it is important to differential lethal violence as a means to protect resources and the concept of murder, which is an exclusively human phenomenon that relies on calculation and forethought. Lethal violence in both chimp and human populations may result in the same ultimate outcome (the death of another) but without understanding the context of that death within the environment it took place reliable conclusions cannot be drawn.
Needless to say, I was disappointed that Dr. Narvaez did not do her homework prior to drawing the conclusions that she did, because it is clear that if she had she likely not have addressed the topic in the same manner, if at all.
April 14, 2011 at 2:57 am
Shay Workman
Ugh, people need to STOP using human psychology to compare with other animals. Our brains are different; we are not going to behave the same way for the same reasons no matter how hard you try to look for what you want to see. From what I can see, Dr. Narvaez only looked at data that proved her point (though she didn’t seem very well-versed in the subject matter to even really find good data to start with). You can run any experiment you want to with the expectations to see certain results and you are going to see the results you want if you shoot for it hard enough. It seems like this is what she was doing.
One of the big issues here is attributing the word murder to the deaths in chimpanzee troops. As we mentioned in class, the ‘murder’ implies an act of pre-meditation, knowledge that you are taking the life of another human, acceptance of the emotions that come along with taking a life and the consequences of such an action, among a multitude of other things. Chimpanzees kill for separate reasons, similar to the way animals all over the world kill each other. Is it murder when an orca stalks and kills a whale calf and then doesn’t even eat the carcass? Is it murder when a hippo bites a crocodile in half? Where is that line drawn? Can it even be drawn within the rest of the animal kingdom or is this a word that should solely be applied to humans?
April 14, 2011 at 3:23 am
Kristina Hauptmann
I think it is important to note that xenophobia is a human trait or condition, and to use the term in a non-human context would be to anthropomorphize chimpanzees. While both humans and chimpanzees might kill their enemies out of fear (a “natural” behavior to protect one’s progeny), “murder” can only be determined by a court of law, an entirely human construction. For Dr. Narvaez to use the idea of murder in reference to chimpanzees is ignorant. As Dr. Sherrow pointed out, murder implies premeditation. Murder involves motive, such as jealousy and greed, among other human emotions.
These are not within the parameters of chimpanzee behavior as mentioned in the blog post. I am certainly not an expert, but it seems as though chimpanzees patrol their boundaries and protect their territory as stringently as possible. Not only do they protect their groups when attacked, but they also actively seek out other groups to fight, getting excited in the process. This is not a normal human behavior, except perhaps in the context of war. In this sense, it seems chimpanzees are in an almost constant state of war, by human standards. Isn’t that anthropomorphism, too, though?
Perhaps that’s the problem. We humans should not ignore our evolutionary history and our biological proximity to chimpanzees. Yet it is necessary to draw the line between strictly human and strictly chimp behavior, as there are millions of years between us. While analyzing chimp (and other ape) behavior, it is important to look at it independently and not in relation to human behavior or with a human lens.
April 14, 2011 at 4:38 am
Benjamin Clemens
“If we want to succeed in understanding violence and warfare, we must understand its evolution.” (Dr. Hogan Sherrow) This statement set in to my own mind that behavior, as much as anatomical morphology, is a trait that has evolved. The question that I formatted throughout the article is why, why would this be a beneficial trait to be passed on? Well, skepticism, apprehensiveness, and incredulous are our own vocabulary terms of Xenophobia, but they are sugar coated because xenophobia is only termed when we reference rage and hatred. Incidentally, I feel that we are using this word to describe chimpanzees as being a ruthless, and alien like creatures seeking blood. I know that I would kill any person that would endanger my sister/mother/father because they are my kin, they carry my genes and traits, and perhaps this is why chimpanzees are xenophobic because it’s simply a fight for passing your genes on. I’m certain that this preceding statement is vague in many aspects, but that is our ingrained mentality, to survive, and therefore to pass your genes onto your children, for they were successful in your own survival.
Now, the extensiveness of xenophobia is another aspect to look at. How far does someone take xenophobia in our society? Well, we have a much complicated society, and we withhold our citizens to laws, and an act of murder has many ramifications; these ramifications will, for the most part, lead you to your own death, so it would be counter intuitive against your own survival for you to murder. So perhaps this is why humans act less extensively than do chimps, for a taboo societal pressure has been implemented among our cultures today. This may be why humans portrait and reserve the word xenophobia for chimps, for they have no laws prohibiting them from committing acts of killing.
So in conclusion, I believe that xenophobia does not entail “Murder,” for it is simply safe to be incredulous of those whom are different and encroaching on your territory, but at times killing may be necessary.
April 14, 2011 at 5:25 am
Brittany McLaren
My first thought is to agree with Dr. Sherrow’s comments about how ridiculous Dr. Narvaez’s assertions are. To compare human attributes or behaviors, as well as our intellectual ability to maintain a vocabulary, to one’s attributes or behaviors of another species, is erroneous. Because murder is an action that can only occur within humans, it is impossible to determine if murder is “common among wild chimpanzees”, because chimpanzees cannot actually commit murder in legality. Although they do kill for multiple reasons, they do not partake in the action of what the dictionary’s definition is to be, “unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”
My next question would be to Dr. Sherrow: How are you for sure that Dr. Narvaez chose to use the word “denomic” from that exact source. (Just playing devil’s advocate here).
Thirdly, I began thinking about the reasons chimpanzees do kill other chimps. The first thought that comes to mind is for territorial reasons, or just defensive tactics in general. Also, males tend to kill baby chimps when they are not the father. The point is, the attacks that occur more than likely have a purpose, or reason for doing so. To determine whether a chimpanzee WANTS to do something is out of reasonable limits as well. We are capable of observing actions and behaviors, but not capable of reading minds, or feeling another animal’s feelings. Therefore, we are not aware of what the chimpanzee actually truly wants.
Overall, I think that the word “ignorant,” which Dr. Sherrow chose to use, fits perfectly to describe the statements and questions posed by Dr. Narvaez.
April 14, 2011 at 6:19 am
Jennifer
I think Dr. Narvaez’s blog is a good example to use to emphasize the importance of the scientific method. When developing a hypothesis, asking questions is an important part of the process; however, it is necessary to make sure the questions are valid. Dr. Narvaez poses the question, “Is murder common among wild chimpanzees?” Regarding this question, I agree with the posts from numerous others. Murder can only be attributed to the actions of humans. Although chimpanzees attack and kill each other, they do not commit murder.
When testing a hypothesis, evidence is gathered in support of or against the hypothesis. This is done through experimentation, observation, data collection, and research. Dr. Narvaez did not conduct any experiments of her own on this topic nor did she observe the behavior of chimpanzees in the wild. Her blog relies solely on the works of others. This is not a problem in itself; but she seems to have misinterpreted the information from the sources she uses to support her case. As a result, her credibility on this issue is diminished. As Anya stated, it is important to be a critical reader. We must always examine and evaluate the information we read.
April 14, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Anastacia Garland
Lethally Xenophobic refers to the fear of others to the point of causing death. While chimpanzees do kill others of their own species, the killing appears to be related to matters of territory. Males from one group will kill males of another group to maintain their territory and the continued ability to breed with females in their own group. The need to reproduce is the very basic instinct of all species, and protecting that is also instinctual. Instinct then, may be considered a primary cause of this territorial killing, as opposed to Dr. Narvaez claims of murder. This concept as Dr. Sherrow pointed out is human, not animalistic in nature, requiring abstract thought. Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines murder as “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought”. First, chimpanzees are not a “person” as described here, and second the keyword aforethought, or premeditation for which a requirement is abstract thought, which has not been proved to exist in other species so far.
If anything, humans have simply taken base animalistic instincts and added the ability of our “big brains” and cognitive thinking to take things like killing to a while new level. Humans have made murder out of killing (for territory, mates, resource gain), industry out of acquiring food with technology like farming and processing, and constructed ideas like “rape” and “love” in conjunction with sex. What makes us human is not our ability to overcome base animalistic instincts (like some unnamed sociologists will claim) but our ability to exploit them using cognitive abilities.
April 14, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Caitlyn Park
Comparing human behavior so closely with other animals, even our closest living relatives, never seems to turn out too well. I know we have to start somewhere if we want to understand our evolutionary history, but our brains are too different. As we discussed in class, humans have a theory of mind that sets us apart from other animals. While humans may tend to create in-groups and out-groups similar to those of chimpanzees, most humans have a capability to recognize and understand that and to see or imagine the harms that can come from that, even if they do nothing to change it. Humans can come up with ideas and concepts like what is considered murder and what is a justified or non-stigmatized killing of another human. As much as we would like to project these ideas onto other species, it just doesn’t work.
As Dr. Sherrow has explained, it seems there was a great deal of misrepresentation of information on Dr. Narvaez’s part. She seems to either have molded it to help support her point or maybe she just grossly misunderstood what she was reading, either way, it’s unfortunate that her post is so flawed and that so many people may read it and take it as fact. On the other hand, I don’t think it can hurt for people to believe they don’t have to be violent and that children need to brought up in a loving, supportive home. I understand her motives for writing what she did, I just don’t agree with the means she used to do so.
April 23, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Leah Miracle
Primatology, Anthropology, Sociology ad infinitum can be psychoanalyzed (including the scientists!): psychology and individual mechanics are a kind of common denominator or anchor. A psychologist by trade, Dr. Narvaez uses its sapiens-specific tools to make the case against chimps’ natural* proclivity for violence, advancing an idea that any claims for such lethal xenophobia are “paltry”: Behavioral Primatologists (never mentions their profession) Wrangham and Peterson and their book Demonic Males come under her knife. Though they’re at theoretical loggerheads, both parties use a kind of anthropomorphic language to refer to bands of chimps being chimps; W&P’s ‘demonic’ and Narvaez’ ‘murder’ imply careful calculations before action, here the deadly aggression by territorial, wild male chimps. Be they “Pan” or “Homo”, agents of corporal or capital aggression do things they’re personally inclined and socially (or even bio- or ecologically conditioned) to do in their environment. There is no violent ‘gene’ grafted into anything, just patterns observed again and again among many chimp communities to support it: universals don’t equal some abstract ‘truth’ of chimpanzee nature. Outward behavior can sometimes belie natural inclinations…does this hold true for species other than sapiens??
As you mention, Dr. Narvaez seems to have preset her own agenda and conclusions before investigating cases for lethal xenophobia in chimps and fabricating counterclaims for a more pacifistic species. Maybe she wanted to be the one to counterbalance such a ubiquitous assumption about the species, the ‘truth’ notwithstanding. The cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead has been ridiculed in a similar way for going into the Samoan villages with a similar agenda: to ‘prove’ that teenage promiscuity, human violence, etc are not innate but habituated socially. What is ‘innate’ — is seen to be innate or natural — descends from a long legacy of repeat socializations/patterns of thinking in specific, persistent circumstances…no?
June 7, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Colleen Boyle
The actions of xenophobia are prevalent throughout our society today. It builds upon itself in many layers. It is obvious in social rights movements, discourse about race and ethnicity, even in sports (as discussed in Dr. Sherrow’s other blog). What I think is interesting, is that xenophobia does not seem to have dissipated at all with the development of theory of mind. Yes, we still fight for resources, land, control, things of that sort; but now that we are able to empathize why have we not become less xenophobic? Are we only able to empathize with those who belong in our group? I do not necessarily believe that, if that were true, would I not be able to wonder what bin Laden’s supporters are feeling now that he has died? Or is that merely a showing of sympathy and not actual empathy? Degrees of sympathy are seen to be prevalent in our primate relatives, as de Waal and many others have pointed out. So where is the line drawn and how can the difference be scientifically studied and determined?
October 27, 2011 at 12:40 am
Heidi Miller
It seems to me that Dr. Narvaez is trying to infer human characteristics onto chimpanzees. As Dr. Sherrow states in his response, “Chimpanzees may kill each other, but murder is a wholly human act, it implies intentions, motivations and emotions that we cannot attribute to even our closest living relatives.” At the beginning of our Human Evolution class, we listed attributes that are solely human and included in that is abstract thought/forethought. Chimpanzees, and other non-human primates, do not have the ability to plot and murder others. The chimpanzees in question were either killed in border disputes or it is unknown what happened to them. By applying the term “murder” to all the deaths, Dr. Narvaez is inferring that chimpanzees have the capability of intending to kill another. As a psychologist, I would assume that Dr. Narvaez understands the differences between the human mind and a non-human primate’s.
On a side note, I would like to address a few statements I found amusing. When Dr. Narvaez says “(1) Goodall reports a so-called raiding party in 1982 in which a female was chased and mildly attacked and her 4-year-old son was sniffed,” does she mean literally sniffed or is this a slang term for killed? If it is a literal translation, then I have to wonder why it is mentioned. I’m not sure what the significance of being sniffed is, did the four year old smell bad? Did it smell good? If so, would it have been killed if it smelled bad? No, that would be murder, I think. Also, Dr. Narvaez portrayed every missing/killed chimpanzees as murdered (which I already discussed). It seems to me that Dr. Narvaez is stuck on worst case scenarios. Why did they all have to be murdered? Could there not have been an accident? Perhaps they left the group. Anyway, I am mostly just messing around in this last paragraph, please don’t take points off my grade.
November 8, 2011 at 1:52 am
Kate Oltersdorf
Chimps may be killers, but I would not say they are demonic. Demonic would imply that they are murdering other chimps and that they kill for reasons of hatred. It seems to me that chimps kill to protect or to ensure their clan’s genes prevail. For example, border patrols are all about protecting territory and mates. If other males come onto the land they could steal their mates and take their food. Territoriality is a natural instinct of most animals and the easiest way to ensure it is to kill whatever comes your way. I would also agree that chimps and humans can be xenophobic. It’s like how little kids are afraid of the dark until they realize monsters won’t jump out of the closet or from under the bed. I could also argue that xenophobia is why racism exists. It is why when the white settlers landed in the Americas they feared the Native Americans and the Native Americans feared them. They fought and killed each other because of this fear. However, I do remember from my American Indian history class that a few tribes excepted the white settlers for a time; until they stole their land and gave diseases to everyone. I wonder if chimps have this ability too; the ability to think beyond their first emotional response to determine if there is a real threat. It would be interesting to read up on this topic, but I have a feeling the answer is that they do not have this ability.
Dr. Narvaez definitely seems to be making assumptions about Chimps without finding the evidence to back them up. She claims that chimps murder other chimps. This statement had no current evidence to back it up. It seems that Dr. Narvaez is trying to make chimps more human than they really are. Now, I will not disagree that humans and chimps have many similarities including things like xenophobia although more research needs to be done. However, Dr. Narvaez takes it too far and needs more substantial evidence to back her up.
November 10, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Ron Hedrick
This post brings to question morality in areas that morality should not be applied. first and foremost word choice is hihgly important and the words demonic and others as such imply that the subject in question also abides by similiar concepts. More so what I am arguing here is that she may add a word to something sceintific and then recreate what is meant by it in the scientific community however at the end of the day once the ambigiuity of the term has been removed it will prove the arguement itself a mere matter of opinion and confusion. I like how in this post however the question was framed aorund previous exisitng knowledge coming from an area of study that actually deals with the subject at hand.
November 13, 2011 at 4:03 am
Liz Michael
On Halloween, I remember watching two big groups of drunk guys sort of standing and pacing around their respective spots and shouting at each other from across a short distance. As they yelled derogatory things to each other and tried to insult each other’s esteem – which made both groups look and sound equally as stupid – their postures all became more forward and “puffed up”. I think they were going for “intimidating”. But neither group actually crossed this imaginary line between the two. Maybe they just weren;t drunk enough. But as I watched, I thought about their behavior. They were two very separate groups of people, standing their ground, their territory, calling out to each other to say, “I’m a big badass… if you cross this line, you’re in trouble”. I was wondering about how the laws of our society play into their decisions NOT to cross that line as a group and attempt to actually harm one another. If they had been drunk enough, maybe they would have thrown caution to the wind.
Also, another thought on male-drunken-violence, that video reminds me a little of a couple months ago when my sister’s boyfriend was walking to our house, and on our street he was beat up by 4 guys. Now, I’m sure he said SOMETHING to them- no one knows for sure because they were all wasted- but with one hit one of the guys dropped him to the ground, and then they all beat and kicked him while he was on the ground. It just seems like such a primal thing to do. It was like they were defending their lives or something, though they weren’t. They were just working as a group with one mind to carry out this act.
Last thing, it drives me crazy when people anthropomorphize everything. I know I’ve been guilty of it before too, but “murder” obviously applies solely to humans.
November 15, 2011 at 3:24 am
Meggan Riley
I’m tired of people thinking that animals are capable of a high level of symbolic thought. I call this the “Disney Effect” and it needs to stop (I particularly blame The Lion King). Animals do not murder other animals. Sure they kill them. Sometimes they eat them. Humans are capable of murder, not chimpanzees. Applying morality to animals seems entirely inappropriate to me. I was reading Seth’s response above and I find it very interesting that Dr. Narvaez is a moral psychologist. You cannot apply human moral code to chimps. Side note, sometimes I think about how humans and chimps are both lethally xenophobic creatures, and I wonder just how “evolved” we really are.
May 31, 2017 at 6:11 am
"BI
I take pleasure in, lead to I discovered just what I
was having a look for. You have ended my four day long hunt!
God Bless you man. Have a great day. Bye